SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Oft times we see accusations of "group think" here on SoylentNews. Now there is some actual science on the formation and function of "echo chambers", as reported by SESYNC:
A new study from researchers at the University of Maryland (UMD) and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) demonstrates that the highly contentious debate on climate change is fueled in part by how information flows throughout policy networks.
...
"Our research shows how the echo chamber can block progress toward a political resolution on climate change. Individuals who get their information from the same sources with the same perspective may be under the impression that theirs is the dominant perspective, regardless of what the science says," said Dr. Dana R. Fisher, a professor of sociology at UMD and corresponding author who led the research.
I would guess, based on this study abstract (actual paper unfortunately behind paywall), that SoylentNews is in no danger of becoming an echo chamber, but we seem to have some refugees who are still stuck in particular bubbles.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:22AM
“The model we used gives us a framework for empirically testing the significance of echo chambers,” said Dr. Lorien Jasny, a computational social scientist at SESYNC and lead author of the paper. “We find that the occurrences of echo chambers are indeed statistically significant, meaning our model provides a potential explanation for why climate change denial persists in spite of the consensus reached by the scientific community.”
I see other hints of it such as coyly mentioning a CO2 regulation bill (which I gather failed in the Senate) and talking about how "echo chambers" can "block progress toward a political resolution on climate change" (Dana R. Fisher). That's the bias of these researchers just hanging out there.
If "climate change" (which is really catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) is such a settled matter, obstructed in the US only by networks of echo chambers, then why is so much effort devoted to a giant ad hominem fallacy?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by vux984 on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:35AM
If "climate change" (which is really catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) is such a settled matter
That's it right there. There IS lots of room to debate whether or not it is catastrophic.
But there really isn't much basis to argue that anthropogenic global warming is not occurring.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Thursday May 28 2015, @12:45PM
Publish or perish is part of the problem. Academia has become bloated and sick with gout, and (most of it) doesn't realise that yet.
(Disclaimer, my company actually makes some money from the academia industry, and a small proportion of the papers that have passed through our hands are bad science. However, they are published in perfect English (that's what we do) so they sound quite erudite. It's not our job to review or reject, it's the journal's job. They're endorsing it by publishing it, we are just a pipe it passes through.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:06PM
We should retract all journal articles ever written by anyone who is affiliated with any institution who has done any climate research, proposed to do any climate research, or who looks likely to want to do any kind of climate research. It is corruption all the way down. This should be done retroactively, as it is clear this "green" corruption did not occur overnight, but has been building up as a systemic problem. I have been saying for years there is a problem with the Ether Deniers. Now it is clear to me that that deliberate and methodologically flawed Michelson-Morley experiment is a widely perpetuated fraud, because I can see now that Case Western Reserve University takes money from such places as the EPA.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:37AM
FTFY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:18AM
Or rather it is not an ad hominem to not respect a schizophrenic's count of the people in a room, so too is it not a fallacy to disrespect someone that claims global warming is a hoax.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:48AM
(do you automatically disrespect a schizophrenia sufferer because her/his count of the persons in the room is inaccurate?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:10AM
(Psst, khallow! Did you miss the part where it's bait?)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday May 28 2015, @07:44AM
Now see, this is exactly where it kicks in:
Funny how suddenly there's all this money for research into public opinion on climate change when someone needs to discredit "climate change denial".
What you fail to understand, coming from an echo chamber, is that there is no need to discredit "climate change denial". It is already quite thoroughly discredited. What needs scientific explanation is how so many fringe elements (and members of congress) could cling to a thoroughly discredited position despite all evidence to the contrary.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday May 28 2015, @11:31AM
There are so many things both right and wrong with this.
Politicians aren't scientists and I think most of us, including some of them, would agree they're idiots in general. They have to look at both sides because they don't understand the science and are required to take all arguments into account.
How do YOU know YOU'RE not the one in the echo chamber? I think you're correct, but it's important to keep questioning ourselves. We can't just shut out debate and mock people because we "know" we're right therefore there's no reason to consider other positions. That's how echo chambers are made.
I prefer to work under the assumption that I'm the one in the echo chamber and can be wrong. I stay skeptical of my position and listen to others with opposing view points, never know when someone will have something relevant to say I hadn't consider before that could change everything. We really need to get away from this, "LOL, I'm right and you're wrong and stupid."
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 04 2015, @06:21PM
What you fail to understand, coming from an echo chamber, is that there is no need to discredit "climate change denial". It is already quite thoroughly discredited.
And getting thoroughlier discredited every day. Too bad, thoroughness is not evidence. I've seen very thorough discussions of why the universe is a single plutonium atom.
despite all evidence to the contrary
If someone ever wants to discuss actual evidence, I'm up for it.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 05 2015, @08:29AM
khallow, I reply because I sense some sincerity in you. But we cannot debate climate change, because there is no debate. It is obvious to everyone that the denier position is only a facade, dependent on the demand to prove a negative, and committed to preserving the profits of the petrochemical industry. So where would you like to start? The increase in CO2 is really not debatable. The fact that CO2 is a green house gas? Do you want to dispute that? Or just the temperature profiles? Yes, facts, possibly explainable by other theories, but that really is not the issue, is it?
No, mostly we troll deniers here, as you have been trolled. But it is your own fault. Did you expect anyone to believe that you have an objective interest in the truth of the matter? No, we just want to get you on record, so you can be ignored in the future. I am sorry about that, I truly am. But if you want to have a serious discussion, you will need to find an new entry point. Denialism locks you out from the gitgo, and for good reason.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 05 2015, @09:08AM
But we cannot debate climate change, because there is no debate.
Don't be foolish. Of course, we can debate this. After all, there's history of debating far weirder and/or more established things like evidence for evolution or settling the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
It is obvious to everyone that the denier position is only a facade, dependent on the demand to prove a negative, and committed to preserving the profits of the petrochemical industry.
There's two things to note here. First, what is "the" denier position? This are a common tendency to lump all disagreement with the current propaganda of catastrophic AGW and a rush to various expensive remedies into the broad category of "denier" and then attribute to it the most extreme position. I don't buy that this research came about just because someone finally wanted to study the social dynamics of scientific disagreement. Rather I see it as part of a larger strategic whole, attempting to discredit any disagreement with various world-wide public policies by implying those who disagree are either mentally ill or merely, as in this case, ignoring scientific evidence, which somehow wasn't persuasive enough in the first place.
So where would you like to start? The increase in CO2 is really not debatable. The fact that CO2 is a green house gas? Do you want to dispute that? Or just the temperature profiles? Yes, facts, possibly explainable by other theories, but that really is not the issue, is it?
Actually, no, I don't wish to dispute CO2 concentration; the observations that Earth's temperature is warming to some degree; or even the claim that humanity is partially responsible for global warming. I believe that there is an human-caused global warming climate effect, but that it has been exaggerated for political, ideological, and financial gain. If you ever want to discuss actual evidence and facts, then yes, I'll be interested in continuing this discussion at that time.